Dan74 wrote:
I guess I didn't get that. I saw the thrust of this thread as debating whether the teachings on Buddha Nature are actually compatible with the Theravada Dhamma (which to my mind, most of them are) or whether they are indeed "pernicious," to quote Peter. Although very little actual debate has taken place, but mostly just assertions.

No problem. Its why I asked Darvki for material evidentiary of buddha nature in the Theravada canon. And I think that would be a good starting point. A discussion based on evidence, I think, would be more interesting for all of us.
kind regards

Ben

Seconded. I would repeat my own qualifier....I would not be prepared to accept as " Theravadin" Jack Kornfield's edited highlights of his notes made while listening to Ajahn Chah, and then filtered decades later into something that suits his ( Kornfilieds ) later position.
Anyone who heard Luang Por in the flesh knows that Kornfield has put his own spin on Luang Pors words.
As any of the current Ajahns will and do testify.
So Theravadin sources which appear to support the notion of "Buddha Dhatu"
Over to you guys....

PeterB wrote:I used the word pernicious advisedly.
The concept of Buddha Dhatu is fundamentally at odds with the Buddhas teaching of Dependant Origination.
"Buddha Dhatu" represents a failure of nerve. A stepping back from the truly radical uncompromising teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha towards a fudge, a restatement of Vedic atmanic doctrine.
It fundamentally obscures what the Buddha is saying at the most basic level.
THIS is the reason for Thannisaro (and others ) concern. And I hope no one will think that Thannisaro's views on this issue are untypical..or "western". What he is saying vis a vis " Buddha Nature " is absolutely mainstream Theravada.
It leads to a number of distortions of the Buddhas Dhamma. Distortions which can be seen on a regular basis on this forum from those who seek to absorb the Theravada into a kind of Pan Buddhism which in the end turns out to be not different from the Mahayana.

Stepping back from the radical nature of the Pali Canon has a number of observable side effects in its adherents.
One of which for a minority is a need to frequent Theravadin forums like a hungry ghost, or like Kathy in Wuthering Heights, always peering through the window from the outside......
Personally I have more respect for those like, (fill in your own choice of names ) ........ ......... who say unambiguously that the Theravada is incomplete, partial, for beginners.
I dont accept it for one moment. But it is honest. It is real. It is fullbloodied.

Well apart from the thinly-veiled ad homs, what you are presenting here is the view of Hakayama and Matsumoto (the so-called Critical Buddhist Moverment). This view was addressed (and rebutted) several pages back as being based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Mahayana doctrines as evidenced by key scriptures, but you didn't bother to address any of the points made by Muller and King.

I have no more interest in rebutting papanca than I have in finding a cure for an imaginary disease.
You show me where the Buddha taught Buddha Dhatu and I will give my complete and full attention to it.

PeterB wrote:I have no more interest in rebutting papanca than I have in finding a cure for an imaginary disease.

I thought this is what you do for a living

You show me where the Buddha taught Buddha Dhatu and I will give my complete and full attention to it.

Guaranteed.

I thought the contention here is not whether the Buddha taught Buddha Dhatu in these words but whether all the various Mahayana teachings on the Buddha Nature contradict the teachings as recorded in the Pali Canon. And though you have made plenty of strong statements about this, you neither bother to back them up, nor read evidence to the contrary. This does not make a dialogue.

Goodness. After all those posts that turn the floor over to me and those with similar outlooks, I feel almost silly for what I'm about to respond with.

I never claimed that buddha-dhatu was taught in the Pali Conon, nor did I ever equate buddha nature with buddha-dhatu.

I personally view and have viewed buddha nature as being a poetic device, as I stated in my first post to this thread:

darvki wrote:It has everything to do with liberation if one chooses to treat it as such. It's a poetic device that can be used to describe the inclusive and ever-available nature of Dhamma.

In fact, I originally took the doctrine to only be a linguistic designation for the capacity of sentient beings to become awakened. Later on literalist interpretations of buddha-dhatu, tathagatagarbha, etc. became known to me, but I never considered that as grounds to cease my regard for it as a helpful concept.

My main objective in posting to this thread, as you can read in my earlier posts, was to combat the tendency I have witnessed in some to become indignant and dismissive every time the phrase "buddha nature" comes up in a thread. This reaction obviously comes from assuming that the phrase necessarily implies literalist tathtagatagarbha doctrine, which it does not. When I use the term and Dogen Zenji uses the term, it does not mean that. There's an entire section on the Wikipedia page for buddha nature about the varying interpretations, which includes a refutation by His Holiness the Dalai Lama that it is an independently existent element.

Simply, I thought pointing out that reflexive eye-rolling at the term as being inappropriate was warranted.

Lazy_eye wrote:It seemed to me the main target of Ven. Thanissaro's talk was not Mahayana per se, but rather the eclectic, cross-fertilizing approach found in American Buddhism, which he finds troubling -- e.g. his joke about Rumi having been crowned Buddhist poet laureate.

So we don't necessarily need to frame this discussion in terms of Theravada vs. Mahayana. It could equally well (perhaps better) be framed in terms of "orthodox Theravada" vs. the more syncretic approach that we find among, say, the Insight Meditation Society folks.

I think he was convincing insofar that he showed that "buddha nature" is not a necesssary concept in Theravada, and that Theravada can do just fine without it. Where I think he goes too far, however, is in his effort to show that it is pernicious and dangerous. Because in doing so, he resorts to a cariacture, a straw man. The "no-effort Buddhism" which he derides would also come under fire among Mahayanists as well. Indeed, there were several heated arguments back at the "grey forum" over this very issue.

I totally agree. I once listened to this long talk of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's on emptiness found here in 7 parts: http://audiodharma.org/teacher/16/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He laboriously picks apart the notions of emptiness in Mahayana as contrasted with Theravada, seemingly critiquing the Mahayana as a whole, to an audience that seems rather burned out after a long talk. In response to a few questions he says something about different schools of Buddhism having their "own internal logic." This is the only admission I've heard from him that Mahayana *can* work - but for Mahayanists. I never quite forgot about that statement because it clarified for me what Thanissaro Bhikkhu has been doing all along. He is not picking apart Mahayana, but clearly trying to delineate the Theravada position as the Buddha's original teachings. i.e. "If it's not in the Canon, the Buddha didn't teach it, and here is probably why..."

Some of the straw men that TB sets up are really evident of what happens to non-committed practitioners of Mahayana, mainstream book and internet Buddhists who do not have access to teachers, or at least not to good teachers, or a structured environment to learn and practice. If you've ever spent real time in a Mahayana community you will see all these same problems looked at very critically. A good Zen teacher will *not* let you get away with a reificiation of Buddha nature as a permanent self, will *not* let you get away with "I'm already enlightened, so I don't need to practice." I can assure you the times I've spent in Zen monasteries were no holiday, certainly not any kind of "no-effort" Buddhism.

PeterB wrote:I have no more interest in rebutting papanca than I have in finding a cure for an imaginary disease.

I thought this is what you do for a living

You show me where the Buddha taught Buddha Dhatu and I will give my complete and full attention to it.

Guaranteed.

I thought the contention here is not whether the Buddha taught Buddha Dhatu in these words but whether all the various Mahayana teachings on the Buddha Nature contradict the teachings as recorded in the Pali Canon. And though you have made plenty of strong statements about this, you neither bother to back them up, nor read evidence to the contrary. This does not make a dialogue.

Actually that is not a bad summation of what i do for a living....

Given that nowhere in the Canon is there any concept remotely like that of Buddha nature Or Buddha Dhatu
Given that no past or current Theravadin teacher ( apart from the schismatic Brahmavamso ) has referred in any but negative terms to the concept of Buddha Nature I rather think that that the ball is in the court of those who claim on this Theravadin forum that this concept is NOT contradicted by Theravadin teachings.
As far as I am concerned its a non issue. Not worth bothering with except to point out its non issueness to those who might be newcomers to the forum..

Lazy_eye wrote:It seemed to me the main target of Ven. Thanissaro's talk was not Mahayana per se, but rather the eclectic, cross-fertilizing approach found in American Buddhism, which he finds troubling -- e.g. his joke about Rumi having been crowned Buddhist poet laureate.

So we don't necessarily need to frame this discussion in terms of Theravada vs. Mahayana. It could equally well (perhaps better) be framed in terms of "orthodox Theravada" vs. the more syncretic approach that we find among, say, the Insight Meditation Society folks.

I think he was convincing insofar that he showed that "buddha nature" is not a necesssary concept in Theravada, and that Theravada can do just fine without it. Where I think he goes too far, however, is in his effort to show that it is pernicious and dangerous. Because in doing so, he resorts to a cariacture, a straw man. The "no-effort Buddhism" which he derides would also come under fire among Mahayanists as well. Indeed, there were several heated arguments back at the "grey forum" over this very issue.

I totally agree. I once listened to this long talk of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's on emptiness found here in 7 parts: http://audiodharma.org/teacher/16/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He laboriously picks apart the notions of emptiness in Mahayana as contrasted with Theravada, seemingly critiquing the Mahayana as a whole, to an audience that seems rather burned out after a long talk. In response to a few questions he says something about different schools of Buddhism having their "own internal logic." This is the only admission I've heard from him that Mahayana *can* work - but for Mahayanists. I never quite forgot about that statement because it clarified for me what Thanissaro Bhikkhu has been doing all along. He is not picking apart Mahayana, but clearly trying to delineate the Theravada position as the Buddha's original teachings. i.e. "If it's not in the Canon, the Buddha didn't teach it, and here is probably why..."

Some of the straw men that TB sets up are really evident of what happens to non-committed practitioners of Mahayana, mainstream book and internet Buddhists who do not have access to teachers, or at least not to good teachers, or a structured environment to learn and practice. If you've ever spent real time in a Mahayana community you will see all these same problems looked at very critically. A good Zen teacher will *not* let you get away with a reificiation of Buddha nature as a permanent self, will *not* let you get away with "I'm already enlightened, so I don't need to practice." I can assure you the times I've spent in Zen monasteries were no holiday, certainly not any kind of "no-effort" Buddhism.

-M

Given that Thanissaro Bhikkhus thoughts on this issue are pretty much mainstream Theravada Meindzi, and I think you will find that they are... one obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that neither you nor Lazy eye are Theravadins....which I guess is your choice.
So feel free to agree with other. Just dont be too surprised if that agreement is not universally shared on a Theravadin forum..

darvki wrote:
My main objective in posting to this thread, as you can read in my earlier posts, was to combat the tendency I have witnessed in some to become indignant and dismissive every time the phrase "buddha nature" comes up in a thread. This reaction obviously comes from assuming that the phrase necessarily implies literalist tathtagatagarbha doctrine, which it does not. When I use the term and Dogen Zenji uses the term, it does not mean that. There's an entire section on the Wikipedia page for buddha nature about the varying interpretations, which includes a refutation by His Holiness the Dalai Lama that it is an independently existent element.

I found this definition in "The Good Heart - HH Dalai Lama Explores the Heart of Christianity and of Humanity "

Tathagata-garbha - Literally meaning "the essence of thus gone", tathagata- garbha refers to the presence of the seed of buddhahood, or buddha-nature, within all sentient beings.

PeterB wrote:
Given that Thanissaro Bhikkhus thoughts on this issue are pretty much mainstream Theravada Meindzi, and I think you will find that they are... one obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that neither you nor Lazy eye are Theravadins....which I guess is your choice.

You'd be incorrect.

My understanding is in line with TB with regards to Buddha nature in Theravada - i.e. it isn't there. The only difference in position might be that I have more of an understanding of Mahayana culture, having spent more time in such places. TB is Theravada monk giving the Theravada position, which is his right to do.

So feel free to agree with other. Just dont be too surprised if that agreement is not universally shared on a Theravadin forum..

Perhaps I'm not clear enough. Buddha nature is not a Theravada concept. It's not in the Canon. The Buddha didn't teach it. That's my position, yours, and Lazy Eye's (as far as I can tell).

Here's perhaps where the disagrement comes in. The thing about TBs talk is that his arguments are not really that original or unique to Theravada. They are the same problems that will be addressed by any decent teacher in that tradition. They can only be addressed by using the unique language and conceptual framework of that tradition. They cannot be addressed with Theravadan logic. This is why we have to be careful about not mixing traditions. (I used to say it's like running PC software on a Mac, only we can do that now, so I need an updated metaphor.)

If I misunderstood your position then I apologise.
I agree completely that we can neither affirm nor refute concepts like Buddha Dhatu using the conceptual framework of the Theravada. The two do not compute. They start from widely differing perceptions of the nature of reality.

Which of course does not mean that the subsequent non refutation of Mahayana doctrine amounts to an affirmation by default. Which some Mahayana posters appear to be suggesting.
It is difficult sometimes not to conclude that some Mahayana guests are suggesting that if they could come up with just the right form of words the scales would fall from Theravadin eyes and we would see that actually we have believed in Buddha Nature all long but somehow it got mislaid...what silly billys we are..

If Buddha nature is defined as something that all beings have or some capacity that all beings have then what is wrong with Buddha nature is that it is just one more way of constructing a doctrine of self....Buddha nature seems to be a doctrine of self based on the illusion that there is a self which "has" something....if we think "I" "have" "it" then a doctrine of self has arisen three times in that one short sentence...there is no "I" and entities can not "have" anything and "it" implies an external self as something which can be "had"......That is what is wrong with Buddha nature....it is a doctrine of self....something the Buddha advised us very strongly to not indulge in....
chownah

I understand that my reference to multiple traditions probably makes my position difficult to pin down at times.

I agree completely that we can neither affirm nor refute concepts like Buddha Dhatu using the conceptual framework of the Theravada. The two do not compute. They start from widely differing perceptions of the nature of reality.

Which of course does not mean that the subsequent non refutation of Mahayana doctrine amounts to an affirmation by default. Which some Mahayana posters appear to be suggesting.

Yeah. I think the point is that Buddha nature is not refuted is that it doesn't exist in the first place, as you've repeatedly pointed out. It's like asking whether the owners manual for my car stereo refutes the existence of God.

It is difficult sometimes not to conclude that some Mahayana guests are suggesting that if they could come up with just the right form of words the scales would fall from Theravadin eyes and we would see that actually we have believed in Buddha Nature all long but somehow it got mislaid...what silly billys we are..

Yes, I don't think the widely different conceptual frameworks that we've pointed out are really fully appreciated. There is still an attempt to fuse the two schools, sometimes from both ends. I think Thanissaro and others like him are doing a wonderful and fearless job of trying to keep things in their proper perspective.

I thought it would be interesting to do a search for the use of the exact expression "Buddha Nature" by Theravadins. Here's what comes up from searching the site what-buddha-taught.net. I tried to check each one to see if they are "Theravada" - seems so to me. With possible exception of the poet "Matrceta" - but his poems look like they're referenced in Theravada circles?

Enjoy.

Luang Por Liem Áhitadhammohttp://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... reness.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Opening our eyes will enable us to see nature within
ourselves, and our own inner Buddha-nature:
awakening. The hardships of poverty, and the allure
of wealth: even the power that these things can hold
over us can not separate us from our own essential
nature.

Ven Dr K Sri Dhammanandahttp://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... ankind.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Buddhists believe that in every living being lies hidden the Buddha-seed or Buddha-
nature waiting to ripen. That means, in every person there exists the potential to
become pure like the Buddha."

"What meaning has the Enlightenment of the Buddha for us? Firstly, the Buddha made us
realise our true potential for Enlightenment, that is, our Buddha nature"

Guy Armstrong
in preface to Small Boat, Great Mountain by Ajahn Amarohttp://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... untain.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"So perhaps it should not be too surprising that in the modern
Thai forest tradition we find an understanding of Dharma with
strong parallels to the central tenets of Mahayana and Tibetan
Buddhism. The Mahayana doctrine of Buddha-nature, for
instance, tells us that our very essence is an unborn and undying
awareness. In a later expression of the teachings through the
Dzogchen school, specific meditation techniques have been
developed to allow practitioners to recognize and abide in this
nature. Ajahn Amaro (whose name means “deathless”)
commented that this specific teaching is the national anthem of
the Thai forest tradition."

"May their message lead all those who read them
directly to their own Buddha-nature and to the vast freedom of
the Natural Great Perfection."

Ajahn Chahhttp://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... reedom.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
translated by Venerable Ajahn Puriso
"So whether standing, walking, sitting or lying we should have sati to watch over and look after the mind. When we see external things it's like seeing internals. When we see internals it's the same as seeing externals. If we understand this then we can hear the teaching of the Buddha. If we understand this, then we can say that Buddha-nature, the 'One who knows', has been established. It knows the external. It knows the internal. It understands all things which arise. Understanding like this, then sitting at the foot of a tree we hear the Buddha's teaching. Standing, walking, sitting or lying, we hear the Buddha's teaching. Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking, we hear the Buddha's teaching. The Buddha is just this 'One who knows' within this very mind. It knows the Dhamma, it investigates the Dhamma. It's not that the Buddha-nature, the 'one who knows', arises. The mind becomes illumined."

"When Añña Kondañña, the first disciple, heard the Buddha's teaching for the first time, the realization he had was nothing very complicated. He simply saw that whatever thing is born, that thing must change and grow old as a natural condition and eventually it must die. Añña Kondañña had never thought of this before, or if he had it wasn't thoroughly clear, so he hadn't yet let go, he still clung to the khandhas. As he sat mindfully listening to the Buddha's discourse, Buddha-nature arose in him. He received a sort of Dhamma "transmission," which was the knowledge that all conditioned things are impermanent. Any thing which is born must have aging and death as a natural result."

"The eight worldly dhammas are right here in this very mind, with the 'One who knows' but this 'One who knows' has obstructions, so it knows wrongly and thus becomes the world. It's just this one 'One who knows', no other! The Buddha-nature has not yet arisen in this mind, it has not yet extracted itself from the world. The mind like this is the world."

"There's a story in the scriptures about the Buddha, before he was enlightened. At that time, having received a plate of rice, he floated that plate on a stream of water, determining in his mind, "If I am to be enlightened, may this plate float against the current of the water." The plate floated upstream! That plate was the Buddha's right view, or the Buddha-nature that he became awakened to. It didn't follow the desires of ordinary beings. It floated against the flow of his mind, it was contrary in every way."

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... Part_2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Many people contend that since the mind is inherently pure, since we all have Buddha nature, it's not necessary to practice. But this is like taking something clean, like this tray, for example, and then I come and drop some dung on it. Will you say that this tray is originally clean, and so you don't have to do anything to clean it now?"

Matrcetahttp://www.what-buddha-taught.net/acces ... el360.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
114 With mind detached, you quietly work
for the welfare of the world.
How awesome is the Buddha-nature of the Buddha! [30]
30. Buddhadharmata. See Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Vol. III (Colombo, 1973), p.435.

Venerable Anandohttp://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... HE_WAY.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Intentionally bring up the question 'Who?' and notice clearly what state of mind follows. The mind stops! We can struggle to find some intellectual answer; maybe our name comes to fill in the gap or maybe an exalted, inspired idea like 'The Original Mind'. But the Original Mind is not the thought 'Original Mind'. Buddha-nature is not the thought 'Buddha-nature'. Thinking is just thinking. Thought does not really answer the question 'Who?'"

Ajaan Mahã Boowa Ñãnasampannohttp://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... Dhamma.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Buddho which is hard and difficult to meet
with (as it says in the above passage in Pãli) will then become manifest in one’s heart.
Buddho may be divided into three kinds, as follows:
1. Buddho — means the Buddhas who arise in the world; but they arise only very rarely,
and only one at a time. In this meaning, Buddho is rare and hard to meet with.
2. Buddho — means the arising of the pure (parisuddhi) of all the Sãvakas, which is also
rare and hard to meet with.
3. Buddho — meaning the “Buddha” inside ordinary beings who are under the influence
of kilesas. This kind of Buddho is common and so not hard to meet with.
How is this so with the third kind? It is so, because this “Buddha” is always supervised,
covered up, oppressed and compelled by the kilesas, tanhã, and ãsavas, which will not let it
show itself and be free.
When the citta or knowledge is of this kind, it is not able to get free and raise itself out of
the mud and mire of the kilesas, taõhã and ãsavas. How then can this Buddha nature come to
know the truth of all things, which is the way of cause and effect in all sabhãva-dhammas?
When this Buddha nature is going to examine, investigate, clean and correct its state by
training all the time in virtue, gracefulness and goodness, it is necessary to start with, that one
should be in a suitable social environment with a wise and learned man (a Teacher) who is
skilled in the ways of curing one’s self to enable one to get free from one’s obstructing
difficulties (upasagga), whether they be internal or external.

Last edited by kirk5a on Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230